Number of Labour MPs against any new referendum motion passes 50

Anti-referendum intent among Labour MPs increases

On Tuesday afternoon, the SKWAWKBOX reported the at least thirty-five Labour MPs intending to vote against any motion or amendment tabled to try to force a new Brexit referendum.

That number has continued to climb throughout the evening and the number now explicitly opposed to any new public vote on the issue has now passed fifty.

The group of MPs includes Labour front-benchers – and a significant number have supported party leader Jeremy Corbyn since the 2015 leadership election.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

A free vote on any such amendment is needed to allow MPs to properly represent their constituents – especially those in northern towns.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal orhere for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

55 responses to “Number of Labour MPs against any new referendum motion passes 50”

Just a quick point about poll results. I mentioned in a post a bit earlier the the latest yougov poll for the Times – which puts the Tories eleven points ahead – was conducted at exactly the same time as another poll which put the Tories SEVEN points ahead (and also pointed out that the yougov poll has Labour on 30%, and the other poll has Labour on 36%). Anyway, an hour or two later it occured to me to look through the wikipedia list again to see if it was also the case on OTHER occasions. And YES, you guessed it, it WAS!

Time and time again, the yougov poll had the Tories ahead, and on average by four points, compared with the other poll conducted at exactly the same time.

One would have thought that the head honchos at yougov would have queried this anomaly a long time ago and, as such, set about correcting it. But then again………

Yerse, how very convenient for the Tories that Rupert Murdoch’s Times has yougov conduct polls for it on average about once a week, which consistently put the Tories ahead of Labour by four or five points more than OTHER polls, which THEY – Tory MPs et al – can then cite on progams they appear on such as Question Time or Politics Live or Newsnight or Channel 4 News etc, etc, along with their chums in the press who very kindly bring them to the attention of their readers.

Brexit is heaven for YouGov, instead of pennies from marketing surveys they are raking it in with two weekly surveys commissioned by remain organisations interspersed with ones for the media, all because they are a major source of semi legitimate fake news……what they produce is true in so far as it’s from a very small group of people who claim to support a particular political party. There should be a warning attached to all YouGov surveys.

It’s in no way surprising Allan. YouGov relies on members self indicating their political leanings. I could register and claim to be a member/supporter of a political party when in fact I belonged to another one. Put this together with relatively few people who wish to give all their personal information to a marketing organisation (with links to the Tory party) and you end up with a small pool to fish in. To put it less politely, YouGov is bollocks.

By carefully structuring the polling question, that now surely discredited organisation ,YouGov, have just managed to secure an 18% “theoretical future voting intent” (which assumed they were a party with nationwide candidates !) figure for the tiny Independent Group of splitters ! This for a group of total losers, with no Party, and no policies ! Weaponised dodgy polling should be no surprise to any of us remembering the 20 points plus deficit loudly trumpeted for Labour as the 2017 General Election campaign kicked off. But as soon as our Left POLICIES are out there being presented to the public , as they have to be in a General Election on at least the mainstream TV news and politics programmes, all previous polling is irrelevant.

Corbyn’s office has been kow-towing to Watson and the rightwing line on Williamson (Sky News – just). Earlier, Jackie Walker was being slagged off in totally knee-jerk fashion.

The MSM is bad enough, but the compliance of the supposed oposition in these totalitarian instincts to stifle proper debatet gives me little hope for the future of Labour as a radical Party as the right is gifted the agenda on both Brexit and antisemitism.

RH. Yes my feelings also. However I have to keep remembering that there were probably 120 ‘Labour’ MPs, relics of Blairism, who voted against Corbyn in the attempted coup and these will have been supported by how many in the Party machinery?

It is a hell of a task for Corbyn, Williams and others to take on to get us a truly Socialist Party but they have to start somewhere and get support from those of us who see through the pretend Socialists such as Watson, Thornberry and Bradshaw etc.

Yes, I just turned on the ITV lunchtime news a bit earlier, about five/six minutes after it started, and almost immediately they were doing the Chris Williamson episode. It was fairly brief, but the reporter who covered it described the video as having been “leaked”, as opposed to secretly filmed.

Anyway, the irony eh….. there he was saying “we’ve apologised too much”, and ends up having to make a grovelling apology himself.

I’ll have to check the video clip out again, but the man and the woman sitting at the table didn’t give any indication that there was someone sitting there openly filming, so if it WAS filmed covertly, then surely the people sitting close by would know who was sitting in that position and, as such, know who it was.

Jim: I would have thought it was the most obvious thing in the world…. the person concerned – if it WAS filmed covertly hoping for something with which to vilify and castigate Chris Williamson – then they could NOT have been a genuine Corbyn-supporting member of Momentum, but an imposter and an enemy.

THAT’S what Chris was in effect saying to his audience, and look what’s happened to him now!

And thinking about it, as I just did, what with him being a close ally of JC’s AND a bit of a maverick who is not afraid to speak his mind, I think we can be pretty certain that he was being targeted, as I have no doubt Jackie was. And still IS!

Jim: I don’t know where this post is gonna end up, as one of my previous comments ended up out of sequence, but I just wanted to let you know I’m not gonna bother engaging with you. But don’t take it personally.

Allan, you’re wasting your time arguing with Jim Denham. He’s a member of the miniscule Alliance for Workers Liberty and they are all Zionists. Besides which Jim has a tendency to call people that he disagrees with – and there’s plenty of them – Stalinists.

Just to be clear – and just for the record – I was referring to the C-word incident in my 6.05am post (and in the process came across the article about the meeting last week during which Chris said “we have apologised too much” etc, which has now led to his suspension).

It’s a great pity Jeremy capitulated over the second referendum. He is less steadfast and rather more ordinary than might have been hoped.

There was a rather obvious way of reconciling the manifesto promise to respect the result of the 2016 EU Referendum with the Conference policy of keeping the option of a public vote on the table. That was to rule out Remain being an option on the ballot paper of any second referendum – so that any such poll (if it had to happen at all) would be entirely about HOW we leave the EU.

But when push came to shove this wasn’t about manifesto pledges or conference decisions. It was a top-down exercise in party management, to discourage right wing Labour MPs from defecting to the TIG.

I think attempting to keep these rubbish MPs was a terrible mistake. We risk repeating (as farce) what happened in the Party in the wake of the SDP – when Kinnock became Leader and lurched the Party to the right, such that there was practically no difference between Labour governments and Tory governments by the time of the Blair and Brown years.. The opportunity to use those governments to fashion a socially just Britain was entirely wasted.

Given the immense damage that this second referendum nonsense will do in the key Labour-Tory marginals, it would have been better to have waved goodbye to the right wing MPs and put forward a positive, pro-working class, far more radical programme for national recovery.

Except that he didn’t capitulate: he followed Official Party Policy – which effectively required support for Ref2 after other methods of achieving a better Brexit failed.
That’s his job.
It would have been a great pity if he’d showed contempt for the membership by ignoring party policy in order to please one part of the electorate.
Don’t lose sight of the big issue: Brexit has always been a a tory issue, and Labour has consistently tried to fight for the best future available. I have no doubt that history will prove that the worst possible option – whatever your brexit taste – would be a no deal brexit (and May’s deal is not much better). Corbyn would have been a dishonourable fool if he’d twisted party policy to facilitate that.

“That was to rule out Remain being an option on the ballot paper of any second referendum – so that any such poll (if it had to happen at all) would be entirely about HOW we leave the EU.” which would be seen for what it is (or would be) by the vast majority of rank and file members – a cynical, bureaucratic manoeuvre aimed at undermining the clear intention of those who submitted a record number pf pro-people’s vote resolutions to conference and went along with the final composite in good faith. A stitch-up worthy of Blair.

As Danny points out, the conference policy was bound to put Labour in an almost impossible position, with regards to the manifesto. I also take his point on an earlier thread that including remain will be seen by some as, at least symbolically, a betrayal, but this begs questions:

The first Corbyn amendment proposing a 2nd ref. was widely understood as tactical – a way of silencing those members of the parliamentary LP who have wrongly wanted to blame the leadership for the general lack of appetite for a second referendum, or more pertinently, have wanted to use that call as a way of undermining the leader. We knew that it wouldn’t pass, partly because of how it was embedded, but also because of the parliamentary maths.

The maths suggest it will be no different this time and in this context, the impossible act of reconciling conference with manifesto is addressed, probably in the fairest and least damaging way possible. I emphatically agree with SB that it absolutely has to be a free vote, to show respect to those supporting the manifesto commitment and their constituencies and to recognise, as well, the nature of the beast.

Some in the leadership may well be trying to head off further defections, but, as Andrew Heenan points out, there are principles involved too. Are we saying that we haven’t got to the point, where all other options, i.e. a general election haven’t yet been exhausted?

I wonder what else was Corbyn supposed to do with regards to the party conference? – I hardly think keeping remain off the ballot would be perceived by many as having honoured the commitment as it was intended.

Are the leave voting constituencies that Danny refers to entirely unaware of the strategic and tactical situation that Corbyn faces? I know that symbolism matters, but so does the actuality.

You are right, Danny. REMAIN should not be an option on the ballot paper. And Conference only said:

‘…If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.’

That’s the public vote we are talking about, so REMAIN is not an option.

PS. It will be very much appreciated if we can hear alternative viewpoints on the matter – if there are any – from other Remainers apart from abusive trolling from the usual suspects. Not that we are not able to respond in kind… But we are for ‘kinder and gentler’ politics.

There is no such thing as a good Brexit, it would be a disaster for our country. Therefore if another referendum goes ahead Remain HAS to be an option otherwise the choices will be to shoot ourselves in the foot or the head.

Usual ignorant repetitive, content-less Trolling from Jack T . He daren’t explain just why Brexit would be a “disaster for our country” , but just states this Guardianista waffle as a truth. It might well seriously inconvenience the ski slope loving , second home-owning , EU bureaucracy gravy train accessing, smug middle classes, Jack T, but for those of us wanting a left Labour government and wanting out of the Single Markert Austerity-enforcing straightjacket , and the consequences of unlimited labour supply on working class wages and conditions – its actually a huge opportunity.

As someone in a northern town that voted Remain, I do not hunger for a second referendum, and if one was to occur, I would vote leave this time.
The EU’s savagery of Greece with austerity, their obnoxious and suicidal slavery to the corporations such as Bayer and VW, their support of the crackdown in Spain on the Catalans, and their love of repeated referenda until they get the vote they want, means that we’re infected with even more neo-liberalism whichever way we turn.
A Brexit under a socialist Labour government is going to be far less painful than a Remain under right-of-centre Tories or pretend-Labourites, and both would be far less painful than a no-deal Brexit under the fascists infecting the extreme right wing of the Tory party.

It is clear that there are now multiple parties in the UK: Conservatives, socialist Labour, ERG-fascists, classic neo-liberal right of centre Tories, classic neo-liberal right of centre Labour, Greens, Scots, etc. The limitations of the two-party system are now clear, this would be an ideal time for PR.

But a bigger reason for Brexit under a social government, is that it gives whichever government is in power in the near future, the power to nationalise and mobilise assets at the level required to combat climate change. And that will become far more important than anything else.

Whilst I still think remaining within the schizophrenic EU and reforming it’s neo-liberal zeal from within would have been a better option, I feel that that is no longer an option available, as time has run out for that slow process to work against the weight of vested interests that influence the EU too much.

I agree with everything except PR Mark. If we were to adopt PR the soon to be formed centrist party (neoliberal supporters of the financial elite) would always hold the balance of power. There could be no mass movement, it would always come up against the 10% of “centrists” brokering power, just as happens in Germany and other European countries.

Good points Mark and I too reluctantly voted Remain as a last chance to Remain and Reform (end Neo-Liberalism via EC sister organisations and trade unions) but this perspective lost and the majority wanted an independent nation state and I accept the result and if there was a 2nd PV I too would vote Leave.
I was never really that bothered about Remain of Leave as both offered structures in which to work for our dreams; I thought our question should have always been: how can we build a left wing democratic socialist society (which is also internationalist) as an example to other countries.
There isn’t perhaps a chance in hell that there will be another referendum on Remain as the Parliamentary numbers just are not there.
So we should leave the Remainers to try to find a new public as we as left wing democratic socialists focus on fighting for diverse working people and said progressive society.

Mark, I agree with all of what you say with the caveat that I don’t have the expertise re PR to have a view. I am especially interested in your comments re nationalisation and climate change.

Like you, I have no appetite for a second referendum and people like yourself and Lundiel have posted eloquently about neo liberalism and the EU. However, your comment on climate change raises a concern about whether we are currently sufficiently well informed about how much state aid and nationalisation is actually possible within the the constraints set by the EU commission.

Obviously, a remain or BINO position (and quite a few other positions) rules out sovereignty over industrial policy. This isn’t to say that state intervention is ruled out per se though. the UK has designated regions that, because of their circumstances, automatically qualify for state aid and intervention. Energy efficient projects in particular also come in for exemption from the competition rules. Germany, in particular, has made massive use of this avenue. I will confess to still being less than on top of the detail re nationalisation, but I don’t think it is ruled out per se. Maybe, what I’ve cited, (‘State Aid Rules and Brexit’, Morris and Kibasey, 2019) doesn’t count for very much, but neither have I seen much engagement, with their analysis, on the SB site.

The efficacy of State Aid for Irish farmers, in the event of no deal, is, I understand quite another matter.

The fact that some of the contributors to Skwarwkbox want to deny the public the option to Remain in the EU if we have another referendum proves conclusively that they are not Socialists and are just trolling for Leave.

I could reverse that and make a very good argument that the precedent caused by a second referendum would seriously undermine democracy. However, I can’t be bothered because you would ignore what I say and we don’t live in a democracy anyway.

lundiel. “I could reverse that and make a very good argument that the precedent caused by a second referendum would seriously undermine democracy”.

No you couldn’t, democracy is only served when those involved have as much information as possible upon which to base their choice. The electorate, despite the right wing media trying to gag the case for Remain have more information now than they had previously. The reason you and others don’t want the public to vote again has nothing to do with democracy, it’s because you are afraid they could make a more informed choice and vote Remain.

Err, “the electorate” have been inundated with remain ‘cliff edge’ propaganda funded by unlimited cash from corporates and foreign neoliberals for the last two and a half years. Propaganda isn’t information, it’s opinion. Even remain voters on this thread would now vote leave, it cuts both ways, this information thing. But a second ref is also out of the question due to the avalanche of remain propaganda that went unchallenged because the leave campaign was wound up and no one informed the public from a left wing perspective.

And if a new Referendum voted to Leave again (as it undoubtedly would – but in a campaign led by the populist Far RIGHT this time – rather than the old saloon bar Little Englander Tory version of UKIP mk 1 ) , you know full well the Remainer camp would then start campaigning for a Referendum to REJOIN ! Don’t posture your bogus democratic credentials , or your spurious claim to socialism, Jack T, (or your dual identity, RH) to us – we are well aware you are a neoliberal, pro EU , Troll. In 2016 an unprecedentedly high turnout democratic Referendum voted to LEAVE, Suck it up, You lost.

Troll alert
Latest twaddle on Chris Williamson is a perfect opportunity to confront our enemies within and without
Prime Chris to take one for the team and suspend him on agreement his case will be fast tracked, make progress patently transparent so we get to frame the narrative
At exactly the same time suspend Tom Watson for bringing party into disrepute and make those charges and issues raised equally transparent,
Great chance to turn this particular tanker around to our advantage and hopefully lose Hodge, Streeting and Elman
Simples

Well Comrade, if you say I.m not a Socialist then it must be true? I was brought up by my grandmother as both my parents had to work in menial jobs for all the hours God sent to scrape a living. My dad took me to Labour Party meetings where I remember Tony Benn’s anger @ the prospect of joining the rich man’s club; watched in horror @ Mr & Mrs Kinnock’s hypocrisy & now live in fear that our pathetic politicians will deliver chaos & more austerity.
My grandmother taught me that my word is my bond & that honesty & integrity are values to be fostered, I don’t see much evidence of it in Parliament. The entire House of Commons agreed that the Referendum was a ‘one-off’ vote & 490 MPs signed Article 50. Never mind the BS about the right to change your mind & more democracy contrarian, when you give your word you keep it, or else you are a hypocrite like all the others.

More people in this country are worried sick about the fact they are working and having no tax credits told not to expect any help. UC work work work into an early grave and live in poverty. BREXIT is secondary.

C’mon Jack, accusing a Comrade of not being a Socialist because they do not agree with you or Tony Blair is a cheap shot; mind you conflating you with Tony Blair is also. Having the right to change your mind does not mean that you should. The Referendum was not an election; everyone knew & agreed the ‘rules of the procedure’. Just because you had your fingers crossed does not mean you can now change the agreement with the electorate.

Steve, What is a cheap shot, is you lying about what I said, which was anyone who doesn’t want to give the public the choice to ‘Remain’ in another fererendum is not a Socialist. You seem to exist in another reality which prevents you seeing what’s in front of you.

So now I’m not a Socialist & I’m now called a liar & a troll! My grandmother would be most distressed. There would appear to a distinct lack of logic in most of the arguments on both sides, as the chattering classes regurgitate what MSM feeds us, however MSM will always continue to feed us & the quality of the information does not appear to be improving, just an avalanche of opinion & comment.
I also believe that the quality of name calling on Skwawkbox should improve.

“The Referendum was not an election; everyone knew & agreed the ‘rules of the procedure’”

Hardly. (In *fact* it was purely advisory). Be honest – a large percentage of the population didn’t know whether it was shit, shave or breakfast time, as anyone witha pair of ears knows – and the Tories pulled Labour’s strings to back all sorts of fallacious myths about ‘honouring’ the wishes of the ERG.

Indeed – it was not an election. Yet the frantic Leavers want to (a) treat it as a simple majoritarian vote typical of periodic elections when it came to the result : i.e a hung vote with a *minority* in favour of Brexit being binding. But (b) *Don’t* want it to have the logic of simple majorities (as in elections) being periodically reviewed – as in the normal electoral process.

Cakeism, as we know, is the new political movement.

There really was nothing sacred about this dog’s dinner of a constitutional referendum that should protect it from review, even if rattles get slung out of the pram. It lacked all the normal safeguards and information that even the local kniitting circle employs in changing a constitution. The 1976 result was far more convincing.

There is no doubt after nearly three years of examination that an intelligent assessment can find no reason that leaving the EU – with all its faults – has a credible rationale that stands up to examination.

Since we are in this mess as a result of the collapse of political responsibility, honesty and intelligence (which the antisemitism scam is also linked to), the only way out is a re-run, backed by (a) proper information and (b) a convincing threshold for determining a result.

This, of course, will piss off Farage, sundry Labour Do-Do’s and the ERG.

… which seems OK by me – even if it pleases a few Squitters. But they won’t then have an axe to grind.

Obviously, the majority of the Party don’t believe the Lexit nonsense – so that’s another good reason – particularly in electoral terms (forget the myth of loads of Kipper voters waiting to be harvested in the consituencies that voted ‘Leave’). They’re largely mythology. The solid Labour vote – in all classes is for ‘Remain’.

Leave it to the Tories to promulgate a further economic decline – and call them out.

Leave voters perfectly reasonably make the point that not all of them were St.George-waving kippers and that many decent people had concerns other than immigration – but it’s equally reasonable to point out that a great number of them were exactly that – S*n-reading dupes of the EDL & ERG.
Given the narrow margin one can also assume that without UKIP giving a spurious validation to pig-ignorant fascists the result would have been different.
The referendum turnout being the biggest ever merely confirms that the result depended on people who can’t normally be arsed to vote in general elections but who will get out of bed to stop immigration – which I’d argue detracts from rather than reinforces the result’s validity.
Referenda, although genuinely the ultimate form of democracy, sadly lead to the FreeSkyPlusSportAndMoviesAndNetflix party running the country.